When no good options remain, tough decisions have to be made. Hard ethical judgment calls, too. Is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a murderous dictator who has waged unbelievably brutal war on his own people to stay in power? Yes. Would anyone be better off if the so-called Islamic State were residing in Damascus instead of him? Certainly not. So is it possible that maybe, just maybe, Russia is doing the right thing by contemplating air strikes against the Islamic State to support Assad? Well, perhaps.

Russia has been actively supporting Assad since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, in terms of both logistical and political support, most strikingly at the UN Security Council. The Assad family is an age-old ally of the former Soviet Union and now of Russia. Syria—or what remains of it under Assad’s control—is Russia’s only remaining strategic foothold in the Middle East, an asset Moscow wants to defend.

Also, Russia fears the spillover of Islamic State–style combative Islamism onto its own soil, and so fighting the militant group is a domestic security consideration for Russia as well. It thus comes as no surprise that Russian President Vladimir Putin is highly interested in Assad’s staying in power. In recent days and weeks, Russia has increased its support for the Assad regime and has reportedly shipped air control systems and other advanced operational equipment to an Assad stronghold on the Syrian coast.

The question is whether a Russian operation against the Islamic State is a good thing or not. Could it be that Russia is doing the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons?

The initial reactions from Western and Middle Eastern representatives to possible Russian air strikes are all negative. The Saudi foreign minister has warned of an escalation. But for Saudis, any support for Assad, one of Iran’s closest allies, is a bad thing, no matter where it comes from.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has also cautioned against a Russian combat mission, fearing an escalation. But the American (and Western) position remains built around the demand that Assad must leave office. Only that this is not going to happen. Russia will not abandon its old ally, Syrian opposition forces are too weak to defeat him, and his voluntary departure from power is extremely unlikely.

And so it looks like the only force capable of ousting him is the Islamic State. The militants have moved dangerously close to Damascus in recent weeks, and no one knows how far they can still go. This begs the question: Which is worse, Assad or the Islamic State? Even the Syrian president’s staunchest enemies might have to concede it’s not him this time. This is where Russian interests in Syria overlap with those of the West.

Is it possible that #Russia is doing the right thing in #Syria? Maybe.

Over the last few days, many other Western pundits and commentators have used the escalation argument against a Russian intervention. It is claimed that many more civilians would die if Russia started bombing the Islamic State’s camps and hideouts on Assad’s behalf. But that argument could be dismissed as highly cynical. Haven’t the recent escalations come mainly from the Islamic State? Wouldn’t blaming Russia for escalating the situation turn the militants into victims they are not?

Of course, it would be better if Russia defended not Assad but the democratic opposition in Syria. It would also be better if Russia, by intervening, were not in fact supporting Iran. But these arguments suggest that an ideal outcome is somehow still available. The truth is that the opposition has not played a decisive role in Syria for months and is far from getting anywhere near power. Not to mention that many opposition forces have no liberal, democratic, pro-Western intentions.

In reality, therefore, the options in Syria are all bad. In cases like that, preventing the worst is better than hoping for the best. Perhaps the negative side effects of a Russian intervention in Syria—namely, the stabilization of Assad in power and the increased role of Russia in the region—are acceptable when assessed against the potential takeover of the country’s capital and other large swaths of territory by the Islamic State.

If #Russia's clout is growing in the Middle East, the West can only blame itself.

If the West eyes Russia’s possible intervention with suspicion, that’s completely understandable. One of the traditional goals of Western and U.S. policy in the Middle East has been to limit the Soviet Union’s and now Russia’s influence in the region—for good reasons. But if Russia’s clout is growing in the Middle East, the West can only blame itself. The West’s unwillingness to play a responsible role in the region only invites others to play their own game. Leading from behind means that the driver’s seat is up for grabs.

There is a possibility, of course, that the West would silently welcome a Russian intervention. The West could stay clean while the Islamic State gets a thrashing. Indirect support for Assad would come from a country that has no qualms about it, thereby enabling the West to stick to its old he‑must‑go policy.

No matter how cynical the game being played by any of the parties involved, the situation in Syria is so bad, and the fight against the Islamic State has become such a priority, that in the absence of a Western willingness to intervene, a Russian intervention might be the last best option. It is one of the most heartrending realities of today’s Middle East that the right intervention for the wrong reason seems to have become the only ray of hope in that slaughterhouse called Syria.

'Would anyone be better off if the so-called Islamic State were residing in Damascus instead of him? Certainly not.'
Assad and IS are both extreme evils, Assad murdered much more civilians than IS, the difference is: Assad is dangerous only for Syrians, but IS is dangerous for Syrians and for the West. Alas the West cares little about ordinary Syrians, it cares about himself.
It is really sad that nobody stopped Assad when it was still possible.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

stevemid

September 08, 20154:17 pm

We have now proved conclusively that once destroyed, the institutions of a functioning state, cannot be put together from the outside. We have proved this in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria and soon in Yemen. To date 4 million Syrians are internally displaced and the civil war has now resulted in the largest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII.
Whatever functioning government has evolved in a country, however "bad" it may seem from the outside, that government should be tolerated if not supported. Today Russia announces its intention to assist the Assad Government by bombing ISIS forces. We should acquiesce to this. I believe that we have to keep Assad in power - if only to keep some form of functioning government in place in Syria.
However, we still have to deal with the rise of ISIS. To deal with ISIS we have to see ISIS. To see ISIS for what it is, we have to separate their means (terrorism) from their ends (nationalism.) When you strip away the emotional responses that terrorism generates you are left with two possible views of ISIS:
One, ISIS is a nationalist movement. It is based a belief by a people who share a common language, history, and culture that they should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination. If you subscribe to this view then Vietnam proved that the force of nationalism inside an outsider-occupied territory is an unstoppable force - even against the most powerful country in the world. So no amount of bombing or boots on the ground will stop ISIS. One strategy would be to construct defensible nationalist borders around ISIS.
Alternately you might see ISIS as the reconstituted military security forces of the disbanded Iraqi regime who are bent on exploiting the inherent instability of Iraq and Syria to destroy what they cannot control, using Islam as a cover story and a recruiting tool. This is the-idle-hands-are-the-devil's-workshop view. If this view is correct then a military campaign and a propaganda campaign to cut off the flow of recruits might succeed in defeating ISIS. However, this approach would need to be many times more organised than it is today. The problem with both approaches is the inherent injustice of the puppet governments of the Middle East and the inequities they create. This is a sore that will continue to fester.
If we support the Assads of the world, we must firmly move them in the direction of fixing the inequities in the regions they control.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Caspian

September 08, 201511:36 pm

There is NO democratic opposition in Syria. The tactics of FSA, before Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS took over as the major opposers to the Assad regime, involved the attrocities performed by those terrorist organizations in every bit. Beheadings, rapes, abductions, killings of civilians were already there.
Syria, being a multicultural-multireligious country, needs a strictly secular regime to ensure any kind of stability. One can see that even Egypt struggles to offer any kind of protection to its Christian population. This means that Assad and his party is an absolutely necessary factor for Syria's stability in the next day, or else Syria would turn into post-war Iraq, with a so-called democratic government, but effectively with not even a slight shade of stability, order or respect between the different cultural/religious groups.
In the day after the war, Assad needs to reduce corruption of his regime, open the Syrian economy to foreign investment, focus all his energy to rebuilding his country and not let Syrian people starve again.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Jannie Meyer

September 09, 20152:41 pm

Putin's support for Asad brings a dynamic that will change the current role player's approach to the situation. Russia only intervenes because IS is still undefeated and threatening to take Damascus. To have so called strategic assests in the Mediteranean and Middle East are unecessary unless Putin has other objectives. He has enough oil and Iran as a partner to have to get embroiled in a conflict that will not have an end. The Syrian and Iraqi maps are rewritten and will still change. For Russia to become involved is a loose, loose situation. Immediately she will be targeted by ISIS on an escalated level internationally. With a struggling economy Purin cannot afford another war. The opportunity for America and its partners now is to let Putin get deaper involved in a costly battle and to eventually simply withdraw over time.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

JohnofAlexandria

September 11, 20157:17 pm

In general, I agree with Jan Techau's article. FSA appears to be a non-existent force at this point, and the only effective partners on the ground, the YPG, have limited capacity and support outside Kurdish regions. An ISIS victory would be result in a region-wide conflagration with far greater suffering than even Assad's actions. So, perhaps some sort of arrangement can be made with the Russians, but they will need to pay through the nose before we even consider it, such as concessions on Ukraine and elsewhere. Any increased commitment by Russia would like be a long-term drain on their resources, if the west correspondingly reduces operations against ISIS in Syria, and evacuates populations threatened by ISIS. I am sure this has already crossed the minds of some governments in both the west and in Russia.
I really would like to know what was discovered during the raid in which the ISIS finance minister was killed. I think we would be disappointed by what we would find. I know some of the local players in the middle east are desperate for Assad to be gone, but funding ISIS is an act of darkness, as well as very foolishly near-sighted.
I will also add that I think Russian moves probably reflect a lack of trust with Erdogan's true motivations for increased involvement in Syria.
Removal of Assad, brutal as he is, is not central to the West's national security interest. What would replace him at this point? Preservation of Ukrainian independence is far more important, given the importance of a free Europe to the economic and political survival of democratic states in general.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Mehdi

October 18, 20157:02 am

It is but natural to fill the vacuum. Syrian situation has not been well managed. Open ended handling has led to stalemate. West would be least worried as long as someone else suffers. It would be advisable to put in the best and concerted effort to see the end to an adventure and avoid leaving chaos in someone's home.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.